It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 15
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


It being a slow news day, and there cannot possible be another imformative Wikileaks article coming soon to a website near you (and me), I'll try to end this silly argument by a very perceptive argument my cat agrees with. (Truth is, I don't have a cat...or dog.)

Anyway, second line long taken care of, let's get to the meat of this hot, hot topic. I propose that all "creationism" proponents be required to rename it to "Intelligent Design" (IT). ( I don't care if Interior Decorators do lay prior claim to the term.) From there it is a simple matter to disarm them, the IT folks, by responding to their arguments thusly, "Yes, of course, you are correct!" Then we explain that the aliens, pick only one group, working with the low-level livestock available on Earth eons ago, fashioned humans as a big fart-like joke on their friends that also fly around looking for excitement, and that explains humans and the occasional occurance of great comedians that surface from the herd once in awhile.

Yes, we EVOLVED. It was in a pristine test tube in 73,000BC under the watchful (solitary) eye of a certain alien professor whose name has not been released yet according to my understanding.

And that is where the single leak about the development of humans--I like that term, "development." it covers all of the bases--from Wikileaks--soon to be Wikiplugged--leaves us in this matterl. If this passionate account bores you, go to Aliens and UFOs and giggle over the Tasco telescope color pictures of the Moon. Very revealing if I do say so never having been there myself but I saw the movie.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You should be punished if you hurt other people for stating their beliefs, which is exactly what you advocate in your original post saying people should be punished(hurt) for stating that evolution is false. Evolution is obvious to you. Creation is obvious to others. I have no more interest in you forcing your viewpoint on me than creationists forcing their view on me.

Lets get down to the real problem. The underlying problem is that taxation is theft. Therefore, your money is stolen (taken without permission), then used to promote creationism which is an activity you find offensive. So no, you should not be forced to support creationism. But neither should others be forced to promote what they view as a complete fiction that harms others: the idea of evolution .

I strongly object to your idea that creationists money should be taken by force to support your evolutionary point of view. This, despite the fact that nearly 100% of creationists support taxation, which is equally wrong.

It would make sense to have a system where if you object to something like war or creationist teachings, you should have the option of not paying for that. Agreed?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Wow! Interesting, and those hyraxes are rather gopher-like in appearance too! Strange. Um, can you show us an intermediate fossil link between the Elephant and the hyrax-like creature? Thanks.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Damn the Natural History Museum for not having comprehensive coverage of its exhibitions available online! Sorry for this, but for tonight all I can tell you is that they share peculiarities in the proteins that make up the lenses of their eyes. Google is proving most unhelpful, so from the internet's perspective, your search engine is as good as mine. It's bound to be out there SOMEWHERE, though.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
IMO, any belief in an invisible diety that watches everything you do should be considered a mental illness.

Second line



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Steam
 


Does not, say, an aspect of your own mind not record what you say, feel, think, and do so that it can make sense of the multiple facets of your interaction with the world and other people. Now, are you always consciously trying to make sense of your various actions, or do you sometimes go with the flow? If you are not consciously aware, is it not possible, or indeed likely, that some G-spot in your own mind sorts things out? What do you think one of the main purposes of dreaming is? Do you not naturally learn from mistakes, even when not formulating a mathematical proof, in some not fully understood, mysterious way? Can you fully control your own mind, or are there some natural processes involved It sounds a lot like there is an invisible creator God of sorts.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 
SaturnFX,

They will have to find out what life is first and I know they never will even if they do find that secret. I leave you to run with your ideas, it's ok we have that freedom. We all pay for our mistakes unless someone picks us up. We just run in different directions and there is 360 degees of that circle.

Truthiron.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by SaturnFX
. . .
me personally speculating...and again, keep in mind this is just my thoughts which I would immediately frame as such, is that the fused cells between our species and a ape is curious. That does make me think of genetic engineering..but I will not therefore start a church up and demand schools teach my speculation as an equal truth... Hell, I flat out believe in the ancient astronauts theory, but I also deem my belief as not even remotely close to a scientific absolute. Until undeniable proof of my belief is found and agreed upon by the majority of sciences, being peer reviewed, etc...then it simply has no room in a classroom...but rather, should be simply discussed in a coffee house informally as the interesting and compelling speculation it is. . . .

For these fused cells to be an indication of genetic engineering, they would have to be beneficial in some way to modern humans. If they are not beneficial it is more likely they were the result of a genetic accident, which was able to spread because of the small number of humans (or ancestors of humans,) surviving at that time.

As I understand it, this mutation was in no way advantageous, and was most likely a reproductive disadvantage at first, before it became established.

Do you have evidence to support any advantage from the cell fusion?

Well, lets use the proper word first..its the chromosomes that are stuck together (meh, didn't think I would get into a convo about this)

Evolutionary theory says that humans evolved from an ape ancestor who had a different number of chromosomes than modern day humans. Humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.

The theory is that at some point two ape chromosomes fused to make a single human one. Why do we think this? Because when we look at human DNA, chromosome 2 looks just like two ape chromosomes stuck together.


The issue is that the fusion is actually an unlikely occurance..as far as advantages, well...since this is one of the more significant dna differences between us and apes, then I would venture to say it may be very significant...or not, it may be a clue that does nothing overall but is a signature of a scientist so we may one day see that humans were indeed products of genetic engineering.

Its a interesting hypothesis and allows for all kinds of speculation.

Oops, thanks for pointing out my mistake. I was half asleep writing that post.


Btw, a son of mine has 49/49 chromosomes.
But yes, most humans have 46.

I don't believe in alien intervention, but it would be wonderfully thrilling to be proven wrong.

The only root site I could find claiming a possible advantage from the fusion was this creationist paper which makes claims of a large number of added chromosomes on chromosome 2, but I have been unable to find support for the claim in the papers it cites. And creation papers are generally full of nonsense.
But just out of curiosity:


The design of life

The chimpanzee and human genome projects demonstrated that the fusion did not result in loss of protein coding genes. Instead, the human locus contains approximately 150,000 additional base pairs not found in chimpanzee chromosome 12 and 13 (now also known as 2A and 2B). This is remarkable: why would a fusion result in more DNA? We would rather have expected the opposite: the fusion would have left the fused product with less DNA, since loss of DNA sequences is easily explained. The fact that humans have a unique 150 kb intervening sequence indicates it may have been deliberately planned (or designed) into the human genome. It could also be proposed that the 150 kb DNA sequence demarcating the fusion site may have served as a particular kind of VIGE, an adaptor sequence for bringing the chromosomes together and facilitating the fusion in humans.


If this occurred naturally, (as I expect it did,) it's likely it just happened once, which would have made reproduction difficult, as a 48 chromosome primate would then have had to successfully breed with the 46 chromosome primate and produce fertile young. Then the most likely scenario is that two offspring each inherited the fused chromosome, and then reproduced together. And then these would have made for a very distant, (between ∼6 and ∼1 million years ago,) breeding pair from which modern humans descended.

The problems interbreeding a 46 chromosome species with a 48 chromosome species would have lead to a sudden differention between humans and our ancestors as an extremely limited, closely related pool must have done most of their breeding together at this stage.

If aliens did it then they could have manipulated any number of chromosomes, but I don't see the need to bring them in as an explanation.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by immortal coil
 


No, you are wrong.

From your reasoning in your post you are saying this:

"Science does not use The Theory of General Relativity anymore as all information that was in it is perfectly and precisely explained by Hubble's Law and therefore The Theory of General Relativity is obsolete."

This statement is 100% wrong.

Lets make this clear for you.

Laws explains what nature does.

Theories explain how nature works.

There is no heirarchy; one is not more "better" than the other.

Both Laws and Theories perform equally important roles in humanities understanding of the natural world.

Here is something else for you to ponder over

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. Meaning if new evidence comes along, the Theory must be capable of being modified. Evolution is a classic example of this. As new evidence is presented, the theory of evolution is, as we speak, being modified to include the new information.

Pretend "theories" like Creationism and ID are based on religion. They only have one answer - God did it - Therefore they are not falsifiable. They don't depend on new evidence, cannot depend on new evidence - The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it - even if true, would NEVER be integrated into Creationism or ID.

Because they do not follow the scientific method they cannot be considered scientific and therefore cannot be discussed along side of any other scientific subject as an viable scientific alternative.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Oops, thanks for pointing out my mistake. I was half asleep writing that post.


not a problem..if I was held to the fire for every mistake I made due to lack of coffee, I would be rather crispy at this point.


Btw, a son of mine has 49/49 chromosomes.
But yes, most humans have 46.

It is my understanding that humans have 46 (23 pairs rather). 49 makes no sense...pretty sure that makes him...not human, however, I will let someone more studied in biology answer that one. But, check to see if the milkman is actually an alien...if he is, time to talk to wifey



I don't believe in alien intervention, but it would be wonderfully thrilling to be proven wrong.

Oh hell, I totally believe in it...but meh, its a fun belief that I will right at the get go say there is no evidence for it, and I wouldn't bet a potato on it...In context, I also enjoy believing that if I purchase a lottery ticket with a positive attitude, I may win
.
Hmm...I guess believe is a strong word..perhaps "actively entertain the idea of..." may be better.


The only root site I could find claiming a possible advantage from the fusion was this creationist paper which makes claims of a large number of added chromosomes on chromosome 2,

Your getting stuck on the advantages thing...mutations happen, sometimes they are great (wings, fingers,lazers, etc), sometimes they are disasterous and short lived (mother nature: I put your heart outside your body. ha.) and sometimes ultimately inconsequencial ( Wisdom teeth rule).



If aliens did it then they could have manipulated any number of chromosomes, but I don't see the need to bring them in as an explanation.


Actually, if you desire to study the subject more, I will say the subject itself is really fascinating..it is all hypotheticals in regards to the current science...and well, one hypothesis is as good as another

I am favoring ET fiddling around with DNA until there is a bit of evidence...then I will begrudingly drop that line of thinking..in my opinion, that makes more sense, but again, I fully admit that is my fantasy/belief jading my judgement.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
A reply to Jobeycool



Chirstians can be just as guilty as non-christians of sin.
.

Whoa, I think you are miss speaking yourself. The truth is we are ALL sinners! Believers and non-believers. We were all born into sin and by virtue of the flesh suit we wear that makes everyone of us sinners every single day.

I am of the opinion that Christians realize how truly bad they are, meaning how evil we have the capability of being. For this reason we realize how much we need a Savior. A glorious free gift we were all (all people on the planet) given when Jesus died for us. He died to save us from ourselves.

To the ones who condemn us for our beliefs.

Many look to and condemn Christians for screwing up and not being perfect or thinking they are "Holier than thou". i say stop looking at other people for your example on how to live a Christ like life. People will always let you down and always disappoint. If you want an example of how a Christian, and I mean a true Christian should live, then there is only one you should look to and His name is Christ Jesus. He was the only perfect man ever to walk the earth. All will fall short of the Glory of God. That means believers and non believers, everyone.

Kindly,
Pax
edit on 6-12-2010 by paxnatus because: quote was incorrect



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
This is like argueing over Empirical and Rational evidence. Whats the point?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Kailassa
Btw, a son of mine has 49/49 chromosomes.
But yes, most humans have 46.

It is my understanding that humans have 46 (23 pairs rather). 49 makes no sense...pretty sure that makes him...not human, however, I will let someone more studied in biology answer that one. But, check to see if the milkman is actually an alien...if he is, time to talk to wifey

There are exceptions to most rules.

It's possible, through mosaicism or chimerism, to have 2 cell lines in the one body.
He also has two livers, female internal organs and two separate personalities, completely different in character and voice, which talk to each other (out loud) non stop.
So it looks as though he had a female twin, which he reabsorbed in the womb.
And he has a variant of Klinefelter's Syndrome.
His chromosomes are 48XXXY/49XXXXY
Proof it can happen:




The only root site I could find claiming a possible advantage from the fusion was this creationist paper which makes claims of a large number of added chromosomes on chromosome 2,

Your getting stuck on the advantages thing...mutations happen, sometimes they are great (wings, fingers,lazers, etc), sometimes they are disasterous and short lived (mother nature: I put your heart outside your body. ha.) and sometimes ultimately inconsequencial ( Wisdom teeth rule).

Well, you suggested the fused chromosome might be indicative of alien intervention. That wouldn't make sense if the fusion did not confer an advantage. So I looked for any information to show an advantage in the hope of supporting your idea.
Having told you about my son, you'll realise I'm perfectly aware that mutations are not normally advantageous.



If aliens did it then they could have manipulated any number of chromosomes, but I don't see the need to bring them in as an explanation.

Actually, if you desire to study the subject more, I will say the subject itself is really fascinating..it is all hypotheticals in regards to the current science...and well, one hypothesis is as good as another

I used to read up a lot about aliens, but saw nothing providing the proof I was looking for.
of course nothing disproved them either.
I've given up reading about alien sightings on ATS, because the threads are full of hoaxes and eager believers and debunkers who post copy/pasted debunks.


I am favoring ET fiddling around with DNA until there is a bit of evidence...then I will begrudingly drop that line of thinking..in my opinion, that makes more sense, but again, I fully admit that is my fantasy/belief jading my judgement.

My fantasy belief, which I seriously believed 50 years ago, until I turned 6 and decided my parents were two trees I was friends with, is that I was an alien anthropologist dropped off disguised as a human child so I could study earthlings. I discovered earthlings all had one thing in common. They all thought I was weird when I took notes in my journal.



edit on 6/12/10 by Kailassa because: re "sparkle", I don't do group waves, either. I leave group stuff to the real humans.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Creationism is a sign of both insanity and outsanity. Haha playing around with pre-fixes here but seriously I think those that argue against creationism are both ignorant and arrogant. Things cannot evolve by themselves without an outside force bringing about that "change".


You mention ignorance but fail to realise that the nature of randomness means no outside force is required.


I should have said that something cannot evolve unless it is first created. So even if something can evolve itself by "randomness", and I highly doubt it, it still brings us to creationism reigning supreme over evolution.

Lets just say you need a spark to start a fire, after you collect the firewood/fuel/weeds/lighters/etc. I have no idea if its alien intervention or whatever....that remains to be proven one way or another but I am not holding my breath!




I am not a big fan of any mainstream religion because they tend to beat around the bush without giving solid answers to burning questions, but when it comes to choosing between religion and science I will always choose religion.


Interesting. When choosing between stories and provable facts, I opt for facts.


What "facts" are you talking about? The random bones collected here and there with 10 tons of conjecture???




When science stops hiding everything under the pretense of "national security" this and "national security" that and most importantly stop acting like god by doing dangerous experiments that could have terrible ramifications on our planet, THEN I might give science some credit.


You seem to be confusing science with the US government.


I am absolutely not confusing anything with anything. It is a fact science has been polluted with masons and nazis everywhere. First of all they run government and second the national security BS is well documented on many alternative websites, books, magazines, etc.

There is a reason mainsteam science has become static over the last 20-30 years. Its become more dogmatic than the church they love to ridicule. Its called scientology; the religion of science. Ron Hubbard and Jack Parsons founded this "church" of idiocy which resembles luciferianism, aka satanism in disguise!

Don't lecture me on "creationism" versus "evolution" because I can cut through the BS like a hot knife through butter......

edit on 6-12-2010 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
A reply to Jobeycool



Chirstians can be just as guilty as non-christians of sin.
.

Whoa, I think you are miss speaking yourself. The truth is we are ALL sinners! Believers and non-believers. We were all born into sin and by virtue of the flesh suit we wear that makes everyone of us sinners every single day.

I am of the opinion that Christians realize how truly bad they are, meaning how evil we have the capability of being. For this reason we realize how much we need a Savior. A glorious free gift we were all (all people on the planet) given when Jesus died for us. He died to save us from ourselves.

To the ones who condemn us for our beliefs.

Many look to and condemn Christians for screwing up and not being perfect or thinking they are "Holier than thou". i say stop looking at other people for your example on how to live a Christ like life. People will always let you down and always disappoint. If you want an example of how a Christian, and I mean a true Christian should live, then there is only one you should look to and His name is Christ Jesus. He was the only perfect man ever to walk the earth. All will fall short of the Glory of God. That means believers and non believers, everyone.

Kindly,
Pax
edit on 6-12-2010 by paxnatus because: quote was incorrect

I will not argue with your comment...You put it more on context.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Yo guys listen up, I saw this dude the other day - I swear he's real, just trust me okay?

So yeah I saw him and he was telling me these things and I wrote them down in this book, but the jist of it is that If we do exactly what he says all the time, we'll go to this wicked kingdom that noone's ever seen or been at but trust me it's real! He told me so! And he's real too by the way! So, you guys in? it's all write here in this book, I'll call it, The Bible...

I was lucky enough to be raised by parents who never forced anything upon me, I was able to form my OWN ideas - and yes, I am an atheist.

I believe creationists (the ones who believe and preach that the earth is only 7000 years old, etc) should be labelled insane, they are knowingly spreading lies. That's all there is to it.

Science aside - Even if ther is an Almighty God, you will NEVER, i say NEVER see me bow to him/her. How anyone can bow to something that lets 29000 people die of hunger every single day baffle's me, that let's over 3 billion people live in poverty while 20% of the population manage 80% of the wealth... I have never seen him make a difference in my time, why should I bow to this douchebag? I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul. If he ever does show up on earth (lol at this idea that he actually cares, if he's real - doubt it) I'll be the first to raise my sword agaisnt him/her because of the way he/she let's us treat our brothers and sisters... Face it, he/she will never make a difference, real-world differences have only, and will only be made by people like you and me, that's all that counts in the end. Not some empty promise that if you follow these exact commands and directives (AND WORSHIP ME MUAHAHAHA) that you will be brought to this wonderful kingdom... How anyone can believe this is absurd to me.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree with MOST if not ALL of Jesus' teachings (Love thy neighbor, he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc) but I believe they should be taught separate from religion : as real-life lessons.

But that's me, and noone will ever see me bow to this jerk god guy that so many people worship... Even if he'd show his face to me.


-Jimmy-



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I will repeat:

Atheism should be regarded as insanity, because it FITS the description and definition of insanity



Anyone would like to argue otherwise??



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


I am absolutely not confusing anything with anything. It is a fact science has been polluted with masons and nazis everywhere. First of all they run government and second the national security BS is well documented on many alternative websites, books, magazines, etc.
none of that is science...that is all governmental nonsense...that has as much to do with science as an apple has to do with a automobile


There is a reason mainsteam science has become static over the last 20-30 years. Its become more dogmatic than the church they love to ridicule. Its called scientology; the religion of science. Ron Hubbard and Jack Parsons founded this "church" of idiocy which resembles luciferianism, aka satanism in disguise!

Scientology is not science...scientology is a religion that for I guess humors sake has the word scien in it (sounding like science).
Christianity has the world Tan in it...that doesn't mean christianity = tanning salons.

Scientology is the belief that a galactic overlord tossed down alien criminals frozen in ice into a volcano..their souls escaped and latched onto mankind..now we must audit these criminal ghosts to rid ourselves of them. That is -not- science...that is -not- anything beyond fun nonsense fantasy...not even science fiction..

Your argument just then demonstrates just how little you know...you learn a word and think you know the entire subject.
I learned the word carrot...clearly that means its a car that is rotting...

a bit of education may help you seem less insane.


Don't lecture me on "creationism" versus "evolution" because I can cut through the BS like a hot knife through butter......

edit on 6-12-2010 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


Yes, like you somehow cut through how scientology is science. lol

man...I guess it takes all types to run this wacky world.

hey...wait...your name is earthcitizen07...which spells out citizen, which means of course citi..as in the bank citigroup...your a banker...I cut through the BS and see you for who you are...your a zen buddist banker that is trying to take over the earth in 7 years

Wait...earth...has the word ear in it...earth is a giant ear...omg...we are living on a ear!! the ancients were sort of right, all this round earth nonsense when its right there...we are standing on a giants ear!!!


its people like you that make me smile...thank you for that



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I am absolutely not confusing anything with anything. It is a fact science has been polluted with masons and nazis everywhere. First of all they run government and second the national security BS is well documented on many alternative websites, books, magazines, etc.

There is a reason mainsteam science has become static over the last 20-30 years. Its become more dogmatic than the church they love to ridicule. Its called scientology; the religion of science. Ron Hubbard and Jack Parsons founded this "church" of idiocy which resembles luciferianism, aka satanism in disguise!

Don't lecture me on "creationism" versus "evolution" because I can cut through the BS like a hot knife through butter......


You do realize that "science" is simply the study of natural processes and predates "Scientology" by eons, right? Technically making stone tools is a science.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
I will repeat:

Atheism should be regarded as insanity, because it FITS the description and definition of insanity



Anyone would like to argue otherwise??


If you want to add something to the discussion, feel free to...but if your simply seeking a flame war, I am sure there are other areas that will serve the purpose better.

so, explain how a non-belief in magical beings and a acceptance of the scientific method is somehow insane then.

The definition of sane:

sane   /seɪn/ Show Spelled
[seyn] Show IPA

–adjective, san·er, san·est.
1. free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person.
2. having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice.
3. sound; healthy.


Insane obviously is the opposite of what is listed above...I think 2 is best used here.
reason, sound judgement, and good sense.
sound judgement is to use empirical facts over wishes to identify a truth in the nature of something...reason is finding the most likely evidence to base judgement on a matter...using of course sound judgement.

a sky ghost magicking everything and creating a mind boggling universe so a few microbial ant people on a backwoods planet have something cool to look at...not overly sound, especially when there is a proveable and fairly mundane alternative.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join